Re: [boost] [pre-review] Pimpl submission in the review queue

Subject: Re: [boost] [pre-review] Pimpl submission in the review queue
From: Mostafa (mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-24 15:51:14

On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:07:29 -0700, Stewart, Robert  
<Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Mostafa wrote:
>> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> > Mostafa wrote:
>>
>> >> Is it possible to have anonymous read-only access to it?
>> >
>> > If you want to use the Code Collaborator site to examine the
>> > library, you must create an account.
>
> Note that creating an account does not mean your name is added to the  
> list of reviewers.  An account, along with a URL, like  
> <http://demo.smartbear.com/boost/go?page=ReviewDisplay&reviewid=5>,  
> gives you read-only access.
>
>> > If you wish to avoid creating an account, then you can
>> > follow the link on the review schedule to the code in the
>> > sandbox.
>
> I should have said that this was the approach to take if you wanted to  
> avoid Code Collaborator altogether.  (I don't know what's possible with  
> Crucible yet.)
>
>> Some may just want to follow a review without necessary
>> participating in one.  Requiring a user account discourages
>> such activity, and in my opinion, creates an artificial barrier
>> to further engagement between newcomers, or even existing Boost
>> watchers, and Boost, even if it is a one-sided engagement.
>
> Do you really think creating an account with nothing but an e-mail  
> address and password will keep anyone truly interested in a review from  
> using the tool?

Maybe not the *truly* interested, but certainly the mildly or lightly  
interested, at least in my case.  For example, I followed Boost  
discussions on and off for approximately two years before I found the need  
to sign up to the mailing list.  It maybe that I represent a minority use  
case, I don't know.  However, I do think the easier it is for programmers  
at large to see what goes on in the Boost process, the better off it will  
be for Boost in the long run, in terms of exposure and potential  
contributions.  And I believe requiring a user account is an impediment to  
such an exposure.

My intention isn't to pass a yay/nay value judgement on this particular  
software, or any potential changes to the review process.  Rather, I  
thought it was relevant to point out a potentially negative consequence of  
this tool.

As an aside, there are many technical forums that don't require a user  
account unless the said user wants to contribute something, and, in my  
opinion, that is the model Boost should follow for maximum exposure.

Mostafa